Super hypo for $1200

Scott,
It may help to think of it this way: consider hypo to be the heterozygous form, and super to be the homozygous form. Then it behaves like a simple recessive gene (the only difference is that the "hets" are visually discernible from normal siblings). SO, if you breed a hypo to a normal - you get 50% hypo, 50% normal babies...if you breed a super to a normal - all of the babies will be hypo (which is why one would pay the extra money). hypo x hypo would yield 25% super, 50% hypo, 25% normal.
As for telling the difference between hypo and super hypo, there is no guaranteed method. There are some indicators which can lead to educated guesses, but they are not 100%.

Originally Posted by scottrussell

so i'm a little confused. i've read all of the posts in this thread and i've come to this conclusion: that you can't tell the difference between a hypo and super hypo until they are proven? and by proven, you guys mean that this snake breeds with another snake and produces super hypo babies? how do you know the super hypo babies are really super hypos of they look exactly like hypos? if they look the same why spend 1200 on a super when a hypo is 500? i'm sorry but i'm just SOO confused with the whole co-dominant stuff. also, does breeding two hypos produce any super hypos? or is it just 100% hypos?

OK, lets see if I get this right. A hypo is Heterozygous. Meaning the Hypo gene is showing dominance to the normal gene, and the normal gene becomes recessive. So when bread with a normal, you get approx half hypo and half normals.
A super hypo is Homozygous, meaning both alleles are hypo, (no normal gene to pass on) so 100% of the babies are hypo.
And you are right. You cannot tell by the phenotype whether it is Super or not. At least not with Hypos. But there are tell tale signs such as the amount of black, a reduced moustaches, etc which are clues to it being a super. I believe unless proven, it should be sold as a Poss. Super. In that aspect you are correct.

Hope this helps,
Rick

WHUU............Don't know what happened, but I didn't even see yer post Harald till I posted mine. LOL WIERD!

Originally Posted by crotalusadamanteus

Don't know what happened, but I didn't even see yer post Harald till I posted mine.

Sure you didn't see my post, Rick, that's why your answer sounded SO much like mine . At least since we both said the same thing, WE are more confident in our responses, lol.

that's still kinda confusing thought! its not like retics where tigers bred to tigers = super tigers. so your saying that your paying that extra money for a snake that will simply produce all hypos when bred...and not for any special coloration it shows? if you breed a pos super hypo to a normal and all the babies are hypo that just simply confirms that the adult is now a super hypo? that's not as fun as the other co-dominant traits with BPs and retics.

Genetically, it is distributed the same as the retic's tiger/supertiger, or the ball's pastel/superpastel...physically, unfortunately, not as obvious. In some cases, the super hypos do stand out with overall richer colors, reduction of pattern, and (frequently) pattern aberrencies. Not all hypos are created equal (just like pastel BPs), and MY thought is that perhaps starting with higher quality hypos will yield more striking supers. Another issue I am (now) pondering is if ALL super pastel balls are equally as impressive, or if some of the "ugly" ones are just missed. Keep in mind, that a litter of boas will typically yield about 3x as many babies...that is huge, and works better for statistical anticipation (which is why many people that breed BP hets get frustrated when they don't get the expected albinos or pieds).

Now, to decide if I want to face possible ridicule in the BP forum with that little question, lol.

Originally Posted by hhmoore

Keep in mind, that a litter of boas will typically yield about 3x as many babies...that is huge, and works better for statistical anticipation (which is why many people that breed BP hets get frustrated when they don't get the expected albinos or pieds).

Now, to decide if I want to face possible ridicule in the BP forum with that little question, lol.

you mean 3x more than bps? oh yeah, and i also noticed that even though books say boas birth like 20-50 boas; when i see pictures of hatched boas (especially genetic phases) its more like 5-10 babies. do more genetically mutated snakes have less offpring or are less hardy? i just saw in this threat the guy only had a few snakes born.

Originally Posted by scottrussell

you mean 3x more than bps? oh yeah, and i also noticed that even though books say boas birth like 20-50 boas; when i see pictures of hatched boas (especially genetic phases) its more like 5-10 babies. do more genetically mutated snakes have less offpring or are less hardy? i just saw in this threat the guy only had a few snakes born.

Not necessarily. A low count litter can result from many things. It can lay in the age of either the mother or father. It can lay in the viability of the sperm count. I believe temps may have some to do with it also. The general health of the female. A lot of factors may be behind a low count in offspring.
It may also have to do with the photographer concentrating on the morphs of the litter with the picture.
All in all, I have found that the age factor probably is a more determining factor as to the amount of young born, but I may stand correcting here.
With some of your more exotics like a snows, perhaps since you are messing with so many combined traits, it may factor in some amount of inherant health risks, but not enough in MY oppinion to say this is fact.

I think the main thing that turns people on about "Supers" be it tiger, pastel, or hypo, is the ability to KNOW the outcome with more certainty than a non super. With a super, you KNOW the results most of the time.

Rick